Where is the outrage regarding our pow treatment?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by ghost_us, Jul 29, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Second US sailor was found dead. Obviously murdered by taliban.

    So where is our outrage? Have we become so jaded that we cannot see the propaganda value in blasting the Taliban publicly for capturing and then killing soldiers? we allow them to blast us for even the smallest transgression but we do nothing.

    Not really a rant and I pose this question seriously. Why are western governments so mute when these things happen? Do we assume everyone knows terry is a 7th century precursor? I don't get it.
  2. Do we actually know that PO Newlove was killed after capture? Be good to have that info first.

    Certainly our govts should make a fuss if the Taliban executed him. Not sure we can complain if he died of wounds from the initial firefight.

    But whatever ... RIP, both him and his mate.
  3. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    It's a bitch, no doubt about it. Personally, I'd like to see us routinely kill prisoners, carpet bombing the place, flattening compounds at will and quite literally wiping out large portions of the population. I'd like to see them viewing us with terror in their eyes, never again to 'try it on' with the West.

    It's a rather unfortunate and limiting factor, this Geneva Convention thing. We and you signed it, the Afghans and insurgents have not.
  4. One of the things many of us Brits don't get is the US public and media hysteria over POW or otherwise treatment.
    You show this in your comment… "Second US sailor was found dead. Obviously murdered by taliban."
    If you go blowing people up, not surprisingly, they are not going to be well disposed to you when the opportunity arises to get back at you. This is the nature of warfare.
    You may not like the fact the 'bad guys' will kill you, but unlike Hollywood where these two would have fought their way out leaving a train of dead Talibs behind them, this outcome is the reality of COIN warfare.
  5. Actually, Afghanistan did in 1956. And it's a 'them', not an 'it'.
  6. The insurgents haven't signed the Geneva Conventions because they're not a State and therefore can't. The Afghans can and have (go to http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/%28SPF%29/party_main_treaties/$File/IHL_and_other_related_Treaties.pdf and search for Afghanistan).
  7. Me too slow. Sod it!
  8. Caecilius

    Caecilius LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    If the other team hasn't signed then, technically, you don't need to abide by the convention.
  9. See highlighted portions. I wonder how many of "us [you of course] Brits] would feel as you apparently do if it was one of "your" lads and not an American in this case. As to the second sentence, you seem to be suggesting (forgive me if I have got it wrong) that the Americans are generally and wantonly killing noncombatants. Notwithstanding the hype of the Wikileaks documents and the specific instances where this has occurred, that of course should be dealt with as the facts warrant and if crimes were committed then there should be prosecutions etc., I look forward to your proof of this contention.
  10. There is the problem though.

    If a wedding party gets blown into very small pieces because of an intelligence mistake, has a crime been committed or not?
    According to any surviors and relatives of the dead the answer is going to be yes but according to the people who did the deed or ordered it done the answer is no.
  11. These people are heathens.

    We should have gone in there initially & given them a good kicking & legged it.

    Then every six months or so, go back & do it again.

    But what do we do..we try to ****ing Democratise a country that is still in the 7th century.

    They don't want democracy, & as soon as we pull our people out, they will revert to form.
  12. Actually we do. Been done already.
  13. First off, RIP. Condolences to those who knew him.

    But. Put yourselves in the shoes of the locals. A bunch of foreigners turn up, brass up passing cars and get away with it as they "follow the escalation of force protocol properly". Looks more like they're cowards who'd rather kill anyone whose reflexes are a bit wonky rather than risk themselves, despite wearing so much armour they look like spacemen. And then they bomb a bunch of your neighbours who are hiding indoors from the firefight because they're too chickenshit to fight man to man. And again they get away with it, muttering about "correctly following ROE" this time. Oh, and your society places honour and revenge ahead of personal preservation. A press release about "regrettable civilian casualties" dosn't cut it. So, what do you do when one of these foreigners hoves into view ?

    I also recall that during WW2 bomber aircrew who got shot down and landed under a parachute near their target sometimes met a rather unpleasant fate when the locals got hold of them. No war crime trials as a result.

    And another question, if this poor sod had been waterboarded by Terry as part of an interview would you call it torture ?
  14. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Simple answer to your question ghost - we don't suffer the same piques of outrage when they do something naughty because they have consistently shown themselves be contemptuous of human life in words and deed. We get outraged when members of our own side do it because we are the ones who profess to the higher standards of respect for the sanctity of human life and dignity yet it has been the case that deeds have not always matched our professed morals.
  15. Back of the net Hackle.